A Geek With Guns

The beauty of the free market is that it doesn’t judge and doesn’t question it merely attempts to fulfill individuals’ desires. While the advocates of gun control continue to claim that gun ownership is on the decline the free market indicates otherwise. Clothing manufacturers better known for serving the needs of business men and women are now catering to those who carry firearms:

Woolrich, a 182-year-old clothing company, describes its new chino pants as an elegant and sturdy fashion statement, with a clean profile and fabric that provides comfort and flexibility.

And they are great for hiding a handgun.

The company has added a second pocket behind the traditional front pocket for a weapon. Or, for those who prefer to pack their gun in a holster, it can be tucked inside the stretchable waistband. The back pockets are also designed to help hide accessories, like a knife and a flashlight.

The chinos, which cost $65, are not for commandos, but rather, the company says, for the fashion-aware gun owner. And Woolrich has competition. Several clothing companies are following suit, building businesses around the sharp rise in people with permits to carry concealed weapons.

It’s not just Woolrich getting in on the action, Under Armour is also joining the game:

Other companies are rushing to meet the demand for concealed-carry clothing. Under Armour, best known for its sports and action gear, will be adding a jacket and a plaid shirt with Velcro pockets for easy gun access.

Kevin Eskridge, senior director for outdoor product and design at the company, said the company had seen demand double in the last year for such clothing from traditional outdoor and sporting goods stores, like Dick’s Sporting Goods and Cabela’s.

Mr. Eskridge said the Under Armour apparel was catching on because of fashion but also because of its features, including moisture-wicking fabric.

So many people now carry firearms that the market is responding to better serve our needs. No longer are we relegated to wearing mall ninja gear (although I happen to like my 5.11 Covert Cargo mall ninja pants and will continue to wear them). Now we can actually walk around and look like normal people. Either way it must really make the gun control crowd angry knowing that carrying a firearm is now so mainstream that companies are outright advertising new products geared towards the carry market.

I wonder how long it will be until the gun control advocates to start protesting clothing manufacturers for catering to us?

Linoge over at Walls of the City likes to point out the absurdity of the common anti-gunner myth that guns are bad news for women. Chalk another one up to those bad news tools for women:

An armed 16 year old entered a FL convenience store, demanded money and began firing at the female clerk. The clerk is a concealed weapons permit holder and drew a gun carried on her person. The clerk fired at least one shot at the suspect, hitting him. The would be robber later died from his injuries. More info in the video below.

And there was also another recent story that demonstrates the dangers firearms hold for women:

“First he tried to grab it, but I jerked it away and fired,” she said. “So I really didn’t have time to aim.”

She said one of the men said, “Oh, hell no,” and they took off running up North Shamrock Street.

[...]

She said, “Every woman needs to get a concealed weapons permit and carry a gun, because it hadn’t been for that, I wouldn’t be here.”

So much for criminals taking her gun and using it against her. I’m glad enough stories like these finally being reported for the average person to see how full of it anti-gunners are.

Somehow even though, according to Paul Helmke, gun ownership is apparently down the number of National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) checks is way the Hell up:

The March 2012 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 1,189,152 is an increase of 20.0 percent over the NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 990,840 in March 2011.

For comparison, the unadjusted March 2012 NICS figure of 1,715,125 reflects a 19.3 percent increase from the unadjusted NICS figure of 1,437,709 in March 2011.

This marks the 22nd straight month that NSSF-adjusted NICS figures have increased when compared to the same period the previous year.

22 months of increases over previous years. Somehow the anti-gunners are trying to claim that gun ownership is down, yet it’s pretty obvious the number of sales is through the roof. I’m not even sure how the anti-gunners came to their zany conclusion but I’m pretty sure it involved a mixture of depressants and stimulants at the same time.

Articles written by anti-gunners usually bore me. Instead of bringing up new arguments and solutions to the problem they perceive they continue regurgitating the same bullshit over and over again. Let’s play a game, I’m going to call it Count the Memes. The idea is simple, to count the number of anti-gun memes mentioned in an average anti-gun article. In this pose I will point out the meme, give a brief explanation about each meme when it first occurs, and keep a running score of the memes dropped in the article. The contestent today is this article titled Silencing the Guns:

That was not, however, the first bipartisan moment related to the attack on Gabby Giffords, nor would it be the last. In 2004, Congress let the assault weapons ban Bill Clinton had passed “sunset” despite overwhelming public support.

“Assault” weapon ban + 1

“Assault” weapon ban points are awarded for mentions of the “assault” weapon ban as a mechanism that would prevent crimes involved criminal uses of firearms.

Total Memes So Far
“Assault weapon ban: 1

That law limited the number of rounds of ammunition a shooter could fire before having to reload, and letting it die an untimely death allowed a mentally ill young man in Tucson to purchase a handgun with a 33-round magazine. Had the assault weapons ban remained in place, he may well have been able to shoot the congresswoman, but he would not have been able to empty his clip, killing 6 people and wounding 13 others, before being tackled to the ground.

Ignorance of gun law + 1

Ignorance of gun law points are awarded when an article incorrectly states what a law legally defined.

Total Memes So Far
“Assault weapon ban: 1
Ignorance of gun laws: 1

But on neither that national day of mourning nor on any day since has the president or the members of Congress, who are either too frightened or too corrupted by the National Rifle Association, honored Giffords or the memory of those who died in that massacre in Tucson in the most appropriate way: with a return to common sense, like reestablishing the assault weapons ban that might have saved their lives.

The evil NRA + 1.

The evil NRA points are awarded for instances where the National Rifle Association (NRA) is mentioned with some kind of clandestine power or other undue influence. This point gets awarded often as anti-gunners like to mention the NRA as some kind of powerful puppet-master that has total control over our government and people.

“Assault” weapon ban + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 2
Ignorance of gun laws: 1
The evil NRA: 1

Later in January, Representative Carolyn McCarthy and Senator Frank Lautenberg proposed legislation to outlaw high-capacity magazines; it has gone nowhere.

High capacity magazines/clips + 1

High capacity magazines/clips is awarded whenever an article mentions standard capacity magazines. The award contains the verbiage magazines/clips because most anti-gunners are too stupid to realize there is a difference between the two.

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 2
Ignorance of gun laws: 1
The evil NRA: 1
High capacity magazines/clips: 1

The first President Bush, unlike his swaggering son (who advocated the demise of a ban on assault weapons whose sole purpose is to hunt humans) showed political courage by publicly quitting the N.R.A. in disgust in 1995 when it began advocating ideas like its contention that citizens need military-style assault weapons to protect themselves against our own government (members, for example, of the National Guard).

Insurrectionist + 1

Insurrectionist points are awarded whenever an article mentions militias, insurrectionists, or other anti-government individuals or groups in a manner meant to strike fear into readers.

“Assault” weapon ban + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 1
The evil NRA: 1
High capacity magazines/clips: 1
Insurrectionist: 1

One of them, of course, is Florida’s “stand your ground” law, which discourages de-escalation of potential firefights in public with predictable results, like the shooting death in Sanford, Fla., of Trayvon Martin.

Ignorance of gun laws + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 1
High capacity magazines/clips: 1
Insurrectionist: 1

If an assassination attempt on one of their own did not move members of Congress to ask whether the N.R.A. has a little too much sway in their chambers, a few dead and wounded teenagers, medical patients, and their family members were not going to unlock their safeties.

The evil NRA + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 2
High capacity magazines/clips: 1
Insurrectionist: 1

Most have clearly made the risk assessment that they have more to fear from the N.R.A. than they do from an occasional sniper.

The evil NRA + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 3
High capacity magazines/clips: 1
Insurrectionist: 1

In the 2010 election cycle, the N.R.A. spent over $7 million in independent expenditure campaigns for and against specific candidates, and it has a remarkable record of success at taking out candidates and elected officials with the misfortune of being caught in its crosshairs.

The evil NRA + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 4
High capacity magazines/clips: 1
Insurrectionist: 1

Last year alone guns killed or wounded another 100,000 Americans; roughly 30,000 of them died.

Not differentiating between suicides, accidents, self-defense, and homicides + 1

Not differentiating between suicides, accidents, self-defense, and homicides points are awarded whenever an article mentions statistics involving firearm related incidents without differentiation between the number of suicides, accidents, self-defense cases, and homicides. Anti-gunners purposely avoid differentiation to make their case look stronger by using artificially inflated numbers.

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 4
High capacity magazines/clips: 1
Insurrectionist: 1
Not differentiating between suicides, accidents, self-defense, and homicides: 1

We don’t know exactly how many have been killed in the fighting in Libya, Egypt and Syria, but our elected officials have had far less trouble calling for the ouster of Middle Eastern leaders than the leadership of the N.R.A.

The evil NRA + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 4
High capacity magazines/clips: 1
Insurrectionist: 1
Not differentiating between suicides, accidents, self-defense, and homicides: 1

In contrast, everyone but the lunatic fringe in America supports gun safety laws — such as eliminating the gun-show loophole that allows the sale of military-grade weapons without background checks, and has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans as well as Mexicans, whose drug cartels find the loophole extremely helpful.

Demonizing gun owners + 1

Demonizing gun owners points are awarded whenever an article attempts to demonize gun owners in a general sense. Usually this is done by stating gun owners are uncivilized rednecks from or by questioning the size of a gun owner’s penis.

Gun-show loophole + 1

Gun-show loophole points area awarded whenever an article makes mentioned of the fictional gun-show loophole. When anti-gunners state gun-show loopholes they really mean the legal ability of two individuals to perform trade between one another without government involvement.

Military-style weapons + 1

Military-style weapons points are awarded whenever an article arbitrarily states a firearm is military in nature. This award is based on ignorance as bolt-action rifles are based on military weaponry but generally never mentioned as such.

Background checks + 1

Background checks ponts are awarded whenever an article makes references to background checks. Statements regarding background checks are usually made in an attempt to make gun owners seem unreasonable. That is to say most people accept background checks as a good thing and therefore people opposing background checks are seen as ignorant, extremist, or simply evil. It’s related to the demonizing gun owners category although happens with enough frequency to merit its own category.

Ignorance of gun-related events + 1

Ignorance of gun-related events is awarded whenever an article makes a statement regarding a gun-related event without actually knowing what happened. In the case of Mexican drug cartels getting firearms, they were given those guns by the United States government through a smuggling operation called Fast and Furious, not a loophole in any existing firearm law.

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 4
High capacity magazines/clips: 1
Insurrectionist: 1
Not differentiating between suicides, accidents, self-defense, and homicides: 1
Demonizing gun owners: 1
Gun-show loophole: 1
Military-style weapons: 1
Background checks: 1
Ignorance of gun-related events: 1

In national testing, we’ve found that a simple, non-equivocating statement focusing on that point of intersection — law-abiding — beats the toughest “they want to take away your guns” message we can fire at it. It leads every demographic group other than those who stockpile weapons to support common-sense gun safety laws.

Special side note: it’s interesting to see an article admit that anti-gunners use the manipulation of language to persuade people to support gun control. Usually they aren’t so brazen as to outright state such a fact.

Offered a message that speaks to their ambivalence, people readily recognize that a 33-round clip makes it virtually impossible to tackle a shooter until he has had time to kill 15 or 16 people.

High capacity magazines/clips + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 4
High capacity magazines/clips: 2
Insurrectionist: 1
Not differentiating between suicides, accidents, self-defense, and homicides: 1
Demonizing gun owners: 1
Gun-show loophole: 1
Military-style weapons: 1
Background checks: 1
Ignorance of gun-related events: 1

hey understand that allowing people to purchase military-style weapons at gun shows without a background check renders gun safety laws meaningless.

Military-style weapons + 1
Gun-show loophole + 1
Background checks + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 4
High capacity magazines/clips: 2
Insurrectionist: 1
Not differentiating between suicides, accidents, self-defense, and homicides: 1
Demonizing gun owners: 1
Gun-show loophole: 2
Military-style weapons: 2
Background checks: 2
Ignorance of gun-related events: 1

Beginning with a statement of principle both makes clear the speaker’s intent and inoculates against all the slippery-slope arguments used by the N.R.A. and the elected officials in its employ or fearful of its power: “My view on guns reflects one simple principle: that our gun laws should guarantee the rights and freedoms of all law-abiding Americans. That’s why I stand with the majority who believe in the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns to hunt or protect their families. And that’s why I stand with the majority who believe they have the right to send their kids to school and see them return home safely at night.”

The evil NRA + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 5
High capacity magazines/clips: 2
Insurrectionist: 1
Not differentiating between suicides, accidents, self-defense, and homicides: 1
Demonizing gun owners: 1
Gun-show loophole: 2
Military-style weapons: 2
Background checks: 2
Ignorance of gun-related events: 1

This shouldn’t be an issue of left or right. Grocery stores in Tucson, where Gabby Giffords was shot (and where my mother-in-law shops — she just happened to be out of town that Saturday), are not hotbeds of “socialism.” I don’t know the party affiliations of the fallen teenagers in Chardon or the staff members, patients or families in Pittsburgh, but I suspect they ranged across the political spectrum.

Pretending to relate to a gun-related event + 1

Pretending to relate to a gun-related event points are awarded whenever an article author tries to tie themselves with a gun-related event in an attempt to generate sympathy from readers. It usually involves a mention of the author’s mother’s friend’s uncle’s cousin’s former roommate living within 100 miles of where the gun-related event occurred.

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 5
High capacity magazines/clips: 2
Insurrectionist: 1
Not differentiating between suicides, accidents, self-defense, and homicides: 1
Demonizing gun owners: 1
Gun-show loophole: 2
Military-style weapons: 2
Background checks: 2
Ignorance of gun-related events: 1
Pretending to relate to a gun-related event: 1

In the end this article composed of 14 paragraphs had 23 memes with zero citations to backup any made claims. Overall I feel the meme score for this article was fairly average. In the future I would advise the author to work harder to get insurrectionist points and pretending to relate to a gun-related event points. Focusing on the evil NRA points is common and makes it difficult to distinguish one article from another.

Unfortunately the predictability of anti-gun articles make them a bore to read. All I do anymore is count the memes as they never contain original material, research, or information. As you can see the meme counts can get pretty high in short articles meaning this would make a very harsh drinking game. Now that I think about it I believe I’ll begin writing drinking game rules for this.

Canada’s fear of firearms lead them to implementing a $2.7 billion long gun registry that accomplished nothing of value. Thankfully their parliament finally admitted their mistake and dismantled the atrociously expensive registry:

Despite spending a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a long-gun registry, Canadians never reaped any benefits from the project. The legislation to end the program finally passed the Parliament on Wednesday. Even though the country started registering long guns in 1998, the registry never solved a single murder. Instead it has been an enormous waste of police officers’ time, diverting their efforts from patrolling Canadian streets and doing traditional policing activities.

$2.7 billion and not a single murder was solved? How do the anti-gunners consider these registries a good idea? Firearm registries are worthless systems designed solely to let the government know who has firearms for a time they decide to confiscate them. As the article points out, registries almost never solve crimes because guns used to commit crimes are seldom left by the perpetrator:

Crime guns are very rarely left at the crime scene, and when they are left at the scene, they have not been registered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. Even in the few cases where registered crime guns are left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed, so these crimes would have been solved even without registration.

Why would a murder leave evidence at a crime scene? Especially when that evidence is a tool they wish to keep to perform future crimes? It’s not a logical assumption, which makes it not at all surprising that anti-gunners came up with it since they’re the masters of illogical assumptions. Either way the experiment has been performed and it has failed so anti-gunners can stop claiming that we should be registering firearm with the government.

The Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns must really be worried at the moment. As their fallacies are stomped into the ground their funding shrivels into nothingness. Forbes has a good writeup that details the fact that none of the doom and gloom scenarios perpetuated by gun control organizations have come to fruition even though the rate of gun ownership has been skyrocketing:

As much as gun control advocates might wish otherwise, their attacks are running out of ammo. With private firearm ownership at an all-time high and violent crime rates plunging, none of the scary scenarios they advanced have materialized.

With an opening like that you know the anti-gunners are going to be horribly upset with the story. The author goes through a few common myths parroted by anti-gunners and demonstrates their falsehood:

Caroline Brewer of the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has reported that “The research we’ve seen indicates fewer and fewer people owning more and more guns.” Yet one can only wonder where they are getting that information. In reality, public support for personal gun ownership is growing. According to Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group that represents about 7,000 firearms manufacturers and related companies, in 1959 some 70% of the American public favored handgun bans, whereas today that number has flipped. This support is reflected in the marketplace. Sanetti observes that the $4.1 billion gun industry “has had nineteen months of growth in an otherwise anemic economy.”

Recognizing these positive trends, most states now issue permits allowing qualified law-abiding people to legally carry handguns outside their homes. Unprecedented numbers are becoming licensed to do so, now totaling an estimated 10 million Americans, contributing, in turn, to a dramatic growth in gun sales.

The anti-gunner bullshit about gun ownership rates going down has been one of my favorites to laugh at. Their argument that fewer people are simply buying more guns is shown to be entirely false by the sheer fact that carry permit rates are going up. When one gets a carry permit it’s pretty reasonable to assume that person also has a gun. In many cases people getting carry permits previously held no interest in guns and obtained their first firearm when they desired to get a permit.

As pointed out in a recent paper titled “Tough Targets” released by the Cato Institute, “The ostensible purpose of gun control legislation is to reduce firearm deaths and injuries. But authors Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett believe these restrictions put law-abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage to criminals who acquire guns from underground markets since it is simply not possible for police officers to get to every scene where intervention is urgently needed. They also document large numbers of crimes…murders, assaults, robberies…that are thwarted each year by ordinary persons with guns.

The paper, Tough Targets, can be found here. It’s a good read and very well researched. Basically it’s the exact opposite of the drivel put out by the likes of the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center. Instead of making baseless assumptions or using statistical voodoo, Cramer and Burnett comb through self-defense stories and present the raw numbers.

Whereas gun control proponents often argue that having a gun put people at risk because a criminal will take it away and use it against them, it seems the reality is more often to be the reverse situation. The Cato data contains only 11 stories out of 4,699 where a criminal took a gun away from a defender, but 277 where the intended victim disarmed the bad guy, although the authors acknowledge that these event reports may be printed more frequently due to newsworthiness.

Arguing that a criminal is simply going to take your gun is one of the dumbest arguments that the anti-gunners have brought up. If taking a gun from somebody is so easy who really cares if a criminal takes yours since you can just take it right back. Hell you can stand there for an hour taking the gun back from the criminal every time he takes it from you and eventually he’ll get bored and move on. On a serious note Tough Targets does a marvelous job of proving how false the anti-gunner’s claim really is.

This is why gun rights activists win, we do actual research and show real numbers whereas the anti-gunners do hand waving an pull random numbers out of the air. If you make claims and fail to ever back them up people will eventually stop listening to you.

Then there is the argument that more private gun ownership will lead to more accidents because the average citizen isn’t sufficiently trained to use a weapon defensively. While gun accidents do occur, the Cato study indicates that they are the most overstated risks. There were 535 accidental firearms deaths in 2006 within a population of almost 300 million people. Although every lost life is tragic, the proportion is not particularly startling.

Another false claim is shot down in flames.

On the other hand, Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).

I can only imagine that this short article has caused numerous gun control fanatics to breakdown into tears. It’s basically a bullet point summary of why anti-gunner claims are wrong. The above mentioned statistic makes a lot of sense when one realizes that police officer can’t magically materialize upon call. When you’re being attacked the police may take hours to arrive (or may not arrive at all) and during that time you’re on your own. If you have a means of self-defense on your person you greatly increase your chances of survival and can resolve the situation even if the police fail to respond.

Finally, on the subject of public safety, just how well have gun bans worked in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.

Robbing a home in the United States while the person is home is a bad idea and criminals know it. This is a side-effect of a well-armed nation.

Remember that today, Valentine’s Day, is also Starbucks Appreciation Day. For those who aren’t in the loop Starbucks Appreciation Day is where gun owners of all sorts viste their local Starbucks, buy some coffee and pastries, and thank Starbucks for now bowing to anti-gunner pressure. Starbucks has stated numerous times that they will not ban the carry of firearms at their establishments, something that has been irking the anti-gunners something fierce. In a fit of rage the anti-gunners have declared today to be Starbucks Boycott Day. I’m pretty sure a bunch of gunnies going to purchase coffee will more than offset the lack of anti-gunners patronage.

Through Uncle I learned that Mayor Bloomberg is putting up some major money and buying an advertisement during the Super Bowl to promote his gun bigotry:

He also announced that he and his Boston counterpart, Mayor Thomas Menino, would appear in an anti-illegal gun commercial during the championship game, joining the race for Super Bowl ad space.

The spot shows the two leaders of Mayors Against Illegal guns in an animated discussion and clad in their team jerseys on a couch in front of a television.

Bowls of chips and popcorn along with a football lie on a glass table before them.

The 30-second spot will run regionally because of restrictions against issue-oriented ads on the national broadcast. The Mayor’s Against Illegal guns, which counts Bloomberg among its private donors, funded the clip.

The biggest problem with anti-gunners is that they only know how to do one thing: throw money at something until it goes away. Members of the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns have no facts to backup their cause so they simply hope they can spend enough money to make guns go away. Luckily for use throwing money at something never actually makes it go away.

In response to an anti-gunner protest of Starbucks scheduled for February 14^th the gun community is declaring that day Starbucks Appreciation Day.

Starbucks has publicly declared that they will not ban guns on their premisses, instead relying on state laws. The threw the anti-gunners into a tizzy because they were trying to get Starbucks to ban the carry of firearms at their establishments.

We should be supporting companies who are willing to stand up for our rights. On February 14^th stop by your local Starbucks, pick up some coffee, and make sure you let the employees working there know that you’re happy about Starbucks’s policy of supporting your right to bear arms. While the 10 or so anti-gunners boycott Starbucks we gun owners, who measure in the millions, can create a surge in profits.

Will you look at that, the boys over at the Coalition to Promote the Creation of Disarmed Victims Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) are throwing a hissy fit because members of the pro-gun community decided to call them on their little propaganda campaign.

What I find more hilarious is the fact the author is “outing” several of the pro-gun bloggers by posting their real names and where they live. I’m not sure why the author does that because if it’s some kind of underhanded implication of a threat (“I know where you live and I’m watching you” kind of thing) it’s less than pathetic. I almost wish I would have posted a picture of myself holding a candle just so the author could have outed me… then again my name is the fucking URL so I guess there isn’t much to out.

You know what’s the funniest thing though? The links from the various gun blogs posting about this little hissy fit has probably increase CSGV’s blog traffic from one visitor a day to several hundred. Even when anti-gunners try to make us look like monsters we try to help them out a bit because we’re nice guys and gals like that.